It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams
OMG !
I laughed until I cried with that quote !
That statement just summed up the entire argument beautifully.
Don't thank me - thank (the sadly now deceased) genius Douglas Adams who was an amazing communicator. Neil Gaman once said that once you had viewed things through Douglas' eyes you could never ever see them the same way since. Truly a great loss to humanity that he died at the tragically young age of 49. I never knew him personally, yet I miss him greatly..
Fire isn't intelligent, we are
Your pool design argument is flawed as well.
In reality they do not look to be designed without huge leaps in logic.
We DO NOT have humans creating planets or stars,
It's an emotional response to the complexity of life and our star system.
originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Entreri06
Evolution is proven.
I understand that some in religion don't take kindly to darmins evolution but he himself was a church goer, not an atheist. If one believes in God then one must also believe that the maths behind his creation was designed to allow life to flourish throughout the universe.
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Barcs
Star system.
That reminds me of phrases like telephone system or computer system
system
[sis-tuh m]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole:
a mountain system; a railroad system.
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: DeadFoot
So if monkeys create something it is natural.
But if humans create something it is unnatural?
Are humans natural or unnatural?
When it comes to fine tuning, the product already exists, but requires intelligent life to do it, think cars, music instruments and complex power tools. They don't self tune randomly.
originally posted by: DeadFoot
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: DeadFoot
So if monkeys create something it is natural.
But if humans create something it is unnatural?
Are humans natural or unnatural?
If you're going to attempt to bait someone into a standard hair-split argument, you might want to get the language in order.
We are apes, not monkeys.
And the term "natural" refers to anything not interfered with by humans alone, excluding other apes, and yes, monkeys.
I feel like it's going to be another waste time resulting in not much more than fiddling with semantic hair-splits, so let's just nip your set-up in the bud right there.
originally posted by: Barcs
There is way too much we don't know about the universe to call it fine tuned. Sorry that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. Do you know the causes of the laws of the universe? Unless you have complete knowledge of the universe, it is impossible to determine. The universe isn't fined tuned in the least. Life survives almost nowhere.
The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life.[14] A slight increase in the strong interaction would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water, as well as sufficiently long-lived stable stars, both essential for the emergence of life as we know it, would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.
In 1961, Robert Dicke noted that the age of the universe, as seen by living observers, cannot be random.[10] Instead, biological factors constrain the universe to be more or less in a "golden age," neither too young nor too old.[11] If the universe were one tenth as old as its present age, there would not have been sufficient time to build up appreciable levels of metallicity (levels of elements besides hydrogen and helium) especially carbon, by nucleosynthesis. Small rocky planets did not yet exist. If the universe were 10 times older than it actually is, most stars would be too old to remain on the main sequence and would have turned into white dwarfs, aside from the dimmest red dwarfs, and stable planetary systems would have already come to an end.
The Higgs boson has a mass of 126 giga-electron-volts, but interactions with the other known particles should add about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 giga-electron-volts to its mass. This implies that the Higgs’ “bare mass,” or starting value before other particles affect it, just so happens to be the negative of that astronomical number, resulting in a near-perfect cancellation that leaves just a hint of Higgs behind: 126 giga-electron-volts.
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]
Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
For example human beings are fined tuned to live on Earth, but we weren't tuned by any intelligence, we were tuned by evolution over millions of years into the creatures we are now
there are billions upon billions of stars, each with their own star system in a universe which has been around for a staggeringly long time.
This suggests that life being on any given planet is itself a random occurrence rather than an intelligently designed one.